Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Crowther (philosopher)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. extransit (talk) 23:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Paul Crowther (philosopher)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Does not appeat to meet WP:PROF. Disputed prod noq (talk) 23:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Just a note that "Professor" in this context indicates a significantly more distinguished career than that of the average academic in the department; according to the departmental website, Crowther is the Chair of philosophy at NUIG.  Skomorokh   15:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Being Chair does not automatically qualify under WP:PROF. --Crusio (talk) 15:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's something of a non sequitur considering my remark never implied anything to the contrary.  Skomorokh   15:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Then why mention it at all?? --Crusio (talk) 15:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Notability (people): The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors. WikiScholar proves that Crowther's monographs are widely cited. --David Ludwig (talk) 15:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This search seems to work better for me | (scholar.google.co.uk "Paul Crowther" -physics) (Msrasnw (talk) 01:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC))


 * Keep. The citation data mentioned above by David Ludwig are misleading, as they mainly concern another person with the same name (an astronomer). If one adds "philosophy" to the Google Scholar search, we find, in fact, very little citability. In addition to the above citation data, I just added a source to the article: one of his books was reviewed in the Times Higher Education and according to WorldCat that book is present in 398 libraries in the US alone. (If I could find this one item after searching for only 1 or 2 minutes, there likely is much more). --Crusio (talk) 15:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Of course, I didn't mean the astronomy papers but his monographs such as The Kantian Sublime or Critical Aesthetics and Postmodernism --David Ludwig (talk) 16:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hah! My search only yielded very low citation counts in the single digits. But The Kantian Sublime does not come up if you search for "Paul Crowther" as I did. GS shows yet again its unreliability... Thanks for your correction! --Crusio (talk) 16:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep: In my view passes WP:Prof #1,. Sufficient evidence of notability via his publications and their reviews. (19:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC))(Msrasnw (talk) 08:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC))
 * Keep because of influence. MiRroar (talk) 22:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment What influence? noq (talk) 23:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. GS cites for appropriate topic give 97, 61, 38, 22, 16... h index = 8, so some influence is shown. How does this compare with others in the subject? Xxanthippe (talk) 04:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC).
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.